I just did. Somebody else added that religion produced much of philosophy (although mcgruff asked specifically what it produced in terms of understanding the physical world (which is silly since that's not what it's about and that's what science is for). You are now also manipulating definitions for your convenience. Religion is no more dogmatic than science. While there are organized religions with dogma they insist is true, the same religions have legions of clerics and practitioners exploring, discussing, and debating their doctrine. Meanwhile, in order to become a "scientist" one must spend a decade or so learning and regurgitating the "right" answers. Then, once you become one, if you have an original thought that deviates too far from the latest flat Earth, you're more likely to be run out of town as an upstarted than embraced.

this betrays your relativism. religion is more dogmatic than science by its very nature. They can discuss the are in their text until their are blue in the face, but at the end of the day they need dogma to buy that their book is in fact important. not only is their book important, but it MORE important than another book that has equally little support for its writings written by a middle eastern tribe OVER THERE.

Also, I answered your question, now you answer mine: explain to everyone how thinking constrained to the scientific method has "successfully explained" time. Let's start with something simple: what it is. Don't forget to show how this was scientifically proven to be.

Time doesn't exist. Perhaps you meant space-time? Guess who we have to thank for that (here's a clue: it's not religion).

Somebody else added that religion produced much of philosophy (although mcgruff asked specifically what it produced in terms of understanding the physical world (which is silly since that's not what it's about and that's what science is for).

At last. You agree we cannot use religious belief to explain the physical world. This includes anything before the big-bang. Agnosticism invokes the possibility of a god or gods but we just ruled that out and so it is equally as invalid as active religious belief. Atheism is the only option.

Last edited by McGruff on Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:22 am; edited 1 time in total

I just did. Somebody else added that religion produced much of philosophy (although mcgruff asked specifically what it produced in terms of understanding the physical world (which is silly since that's not what it's about and that's what science is for). You are now also manipulating definitions for your convenience. Religion is no more dogmatic than science. While there are organized religions with dogma they insist is true, the same religions have legions of clerics and practitioners exploring, discussing, and debating their doctrine. Meanwhile, in order to become a "scientist" one must spend a decade or so learning and regurgitating the "right" answers. Then, once you become one, if you have an original thought that deviates too far from the latest flat Earth, you're more likely to be run out of town as an upstarted than embraced.

You very obviously didn't and are now trying to use the argument that science is based as much on faith as religion and that fails.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I have no fucking idea... not a freaking clue... how you could come up with that from what I have said.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

While you obviously learn what other people discovered, it's not dogmatic and you're supposed to question it and try to falsify it as much as you can. Religion tells you what to believe, how to believe and any questions to the dogma are blasphemy.

What you're "supposed" to do and what is actually done are two different things. 99.99% of people's involvement with science is limited to learning it, dogmatically, by the fricking numbers, in school. There's "right", and there's "wrong". If you get too much wrong, you fail, because you don't "know science". The other 0.01% of people may actually engage in scientific thought.

By the way, you guys are in the 99.99%, and are demonstrating the very dogmatism I am pointing out.

Only an idiot fails to comprehend that organized religions are dogmatic, but there's another kind of idiot that sits there and criticizes them for that and failing to keep their dogma up to date with science, while failing to grasp that their own understanding of science is similarly dogmatic, if to a somewhat lesser degree.

But again, this is all nothing but spinning on mcgruff's red herring about "show me one thing about physical reality that religion has explained". Nobody cares if religion has explained anything about physical reality; that's what we have science for. Furthermore, science hasn't really answered very many of the important questions we have.

I'm still waiting for mcgruff, or anybody, to show how science has explained time, and have tried to make that easy by limiting my request to simply showing how science has explained "what time is", and explaining how that was arrived at using the scientific method. So let's hear it, gentlemen._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

Somebody else added that religion produced much of philosophy (although mcgruff asked specifically what it produced in terms of understanding the physical world (which is silly since that's not what it's about and that's what science is for).

At last. You agree we cannot use religious belief to explain the physical world. This includes anything before the big-bang. Agnosticism invokes the possibility of a god or gods but we just ruled out and so it is equally as invalid as active religious belief. Atheism is the only option.

No, that's not what I said. This is a strawman. Science cannot explain anything that cannot be observed. Much (probably most, by a long shot) of physical reality is beyond or ability to observe, even indirectly; so much (probably most) of physical reality is outside the scope of science, at least for the time being. Now, one might argue that speculation about the unobserved physical world is "scientific speculation", but that's just playing with words. When it comes down to it, the hard boundary between scientific thought and other fields of thought, is whether or not that thought conforms to the scientific method.

Science is only a small subset of rational thought. I know your educations have neglected philosophy, that you're the brainwashed products of state-run "educational" curricula of socialist societies, and that this is causing you painful cognitive dissonance, but you can overcome it! You can do it! Just force yourselves to actually think and use logic! You can do it! _________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

I just did. Somebody else added that religion produced much of philosophy (although mcgruff asked specifically what it produced in terms of understanding the physical world (which is silly since that's not what it's about and that's what science is for). You are now also manipulating definitions for your convenience. Religion is no more dogmatic than science. While there are organized religions with dogma they insist is true, the same religions have legions of clerics and practitioners exploring, discussing, and debating their doctrine. Meanwhile, in order to become a "scientist" one must spend a decade or so learning and regurgitating the "right" answers. Then, once you become one, if you have an original thought that deviates too far from the latest flat Earth, you're more likely to be run out of town as an upstarted than embraced.

You very obviously didn't and are now trying to use the argument that science is based as much on faith as religion and that fails.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I have no fucking idea... not a freaking clue... how you could come up with that from what I have said.

You might want to review those bolded parts.

You seem to have this idea that every claim made should be accepted automatically, ignoring that, when a positive claim is asserted, the person making the claim has a burden of proof they have to meet. If you do have an original thought that contradicts all the evidence available, it's only fair that you have some pretty good evidence to support it.

BoneKracker wrote:

GabrielYYZ wrote:

While you obviously learn what other people discovered, it's not dogmatic and you're supposed to question it and try to falsify it as much as you can. Religion tells you what to believe, how to believe and any questions to the dogma are blasphemy.

What you're "supposed" to do and what is actually done are two different things. 99.99% of people's involvement with science is limited to learning it, dogmatically, by the fricking numbers, in school. There's "right", and there's "wrong". If you get too much wrong, you fail, because you don't "know science". The other 0.01% of people may actually engage in scientific thought.

By the way, you guys are in the 99.99%, and are demonstrating the very dogmatism I am pointing out.

Only an idiot fails to comprehend that organized religions are dogmatic, but there's another kind of idiot that sits there and criticizes them for that and failing to keep their dogma up to date with science, while failing to grasp that their own understanding of science is similarly dogmatic, if to a somewhat lesser degree.

But again, this is all nothing but spinning on mcgruff's red herring about "show me one thing about physical reality that religion has explained". Nobody cares if religion has explained anything about physical reality; that's what we have science for. Furthermore, science hasn't really answered very many of the important questions we have.

I'm still waiting for mcgruff, or anybody, to show how science has explained time, and have tried to make that easy by limiting my request to simply showing how science has explained "what time is", and explaining how that was arrived at using the scientific method. So let's hear it, gentlemen.

1. You keep referring to "scientific thought", tt's as if you don't realize that there's logical thought and illogical thought, the only difference between an scientist and a non-scientist is the problems they apply it to.

2. The fact that science, or philosophy to be honest, haven't answered many important questions doesn't mean they won't answer them and it certainly doesn't mean any answer that hasn't fulfilled its burden of proof should be accepted.

I just did. Somebody else added that religion produced much of philosophy (although mcgruff asked specifically what it produced in terms of understanding the physical world (which is silly since that's not what it's about and that's what science is for). You are now also manipulating definitions for your convenience. Religion is no more dogmatic than science. While there are organized religions with dogma they insist is true, the same religions have legions of clerics and practitioners exploring, discussing, and debating their doctrine. Meanwhile, in order to become a "scientist" one must spend a decade or so learning and regurgitating the "right" answers. Then, once you become one, if you have an original thought that deviates too far from the latest flat Earth, you're more likely to be run out of town as an upstarted than embraced.

You very obviously didn't and are now trying to use the argument that science is based as much on faith as religion and that fails.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I have no fucking idea... not a freaking clue... how you could come up with that from what I have said.

You might want to review those bolded parts.

You seem to have this idea that every claim made should be accepted automatically, ignoring that, when a positive claim is asserted, the person making the claim has a burden of proof they have to meet. If you do have an original thought that contradicts all the evidence available, it's only fair that you have some pretty good evidence to support it.

BoneKracker wrote:

GabrielYYZ wrote:

While you obviously learn what other people discovered, it's not dogmatic and you're supposed to question it and try to falsify it as much as you can. Religion tells you what to believe, how to believe and any questions to the dogma are blasphemy.

What you're "supposed" to do and what is actually done are two different things. 99.99% of people's involvement with science is limited to learning it, dogmatically, by the fricking numbers, in school. There's "right", and there's "wrong". If you get too much wrong, you fail, because you don't "know science". The other 0.01% of people may actually engage in scientific thought.

By the way, you guys are in the 99.99%, and are demonstrating the very dogmatism I am pointing out.

Only an idiot fails to comprehend that organized religions are dogmatic, but there's another kind of idiot that sits there and criticizes them for that and failing to keep their dogma up to date with science, while failing to grasp that their own understanding of science is similarly dogmatic, if to a somewhat lesser degree.

But again, this is all nothing but spinning on mcgruff's red herring about "show me one thing about physical reality that religion has explained". Nobody cares if religion has explained anything about physical reality; that's what we have science for. Furthermore, science hasn't really answered very many of the important questions we have.

I'm still waiting for mcgruff, or anybody, to show how science has explained time, and have tried to make that easy by limiting my request to simply showing how science has explained "what time is", and explaining how that was arrived at using the scientific method. So let's hear it, gentlemen.

1. You keep referring to "scientific thought", tt's as if you don't realize that there's logical thought and illogical thought, the only difference between an scientist and a non-scientist is the problems they apply it to.

First, I should have said, "religion is no more dogmatic that science, in practice". Other than that, I stand by those "bolded statements" 100%. Organized religion tends to be dogmatic, but these days I think most religion isn't organized religion.

Second, I have to say that you keep raising objection after objection, many of them picayune, and most of them demonstrate a repeated failure to absorb what has already been said. You should take more time to try and fully comprehend what people are trying to say and focus on what's actually important before giving in to your compulsive need to protect your programming by responding.

Now, as to your statement (1) here, I agree with this mostly, but we're not talking about the difference between "scientists" and "non-scientists". You're playing with definitions again. What we're really talking about here is the difference between "science" and "non-science", to include both the processes and their systematic outputs (which can limit to information for the purposes of this discussion). You guys are going of into wild-ass tangents, bifurcating, pivoting, quibbling, raising red herrings, etc., because your brains are desperately seeking to avoid what they have been programmed to reject: that more often than not, non-science (whether that be the though processes or the information thereby derived) is in fact rational, the best we can do, and not just stuff you should point your nasty-smelling fingers at and laugh. This does indeed make it a bit harder to piss and shit all over religion and religious people, but have you ever considered that not all of it or all of them deserve such treatment? (In my opinion, some do deserve it, and some are actually being rational, but people like tend to lump the latter in with the former.)

GabrielYYZ wrote:

2. The fact that science, or philosophy to be honest, haven't answered many important questions doesn't mean they won't answer them and it certainly doesn't mean any answer that hasn't fulfilled its burden of proof should be accepted.

Yes, it does. This is where you are completely wrong, and both you, mcgruff, and juniper are clinging to this "evidence" point like a baby to a teething ring. The main difference between science and the rest of rational thought is the standard of confirmation by direct observation. This is not always possible, which is why science is generally limited to explaining physical reality, much of which is observable. However, that doesn't make every other form of reasoning and the resulting conclusions "nonsense" to be laughed at. Direct observation is merely one way of arriving at a conclusion; logic is another, and it's entirely rational thought. It will never produce the high levels of certainty we get from direct observation, but in situations where direct observation is infeasible, we do not simply throw our hands in the air and say, "Fuck it! We can't think about that or decide what to do about it... because it's not Scyents!"

Furthermore, there really is no black-and-white dividing line between what is, and is not, "science". There is a degree of artificiality to science, because what we consider to be "direct observation" really is not. We are not actually observing what is going on; to one extent or another, we are observing abstractions or even effects. Levels of uncertainty vary with degree of abstraction, but at the conceptual level one abstraction is the same as another, whether that abstraction be a universe, a star, a meteor, a human being, a thought, a feeling, an atom, or, quite possibly a boson. They all lie on a single continuum of abstraction and uncertainty, not a black-and-white, boolean differentiation between "science" and "not science" (although we often use such aggregations for our own convenience). Therefore, something is not "invalid" or "nonsense" or "crap" because we cannot directly observe it (i.e., demonstrate evidence of it). What's more important is whether thought is logically coherent and makes maximum use of such observational confirmation where feasible, and that expression of it communicates the level of uncertainty of its truth._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

But we're not talking about the difference between a scientists and a non-scientist. 1We're talking about the difference between science and non-science. You guys are going of into wild-ass tangents, quibbling over definitions and semantics, because your brains are desperately seeking to avoid what they have been programmed not to acknowledge: that more often than not, non-science (whether that be the though processes or the information thereby derived) is rational, the best we can do, and not just stuff you should point your nasty-smelling fingers at and laugh.

You keep raising objection after objection, and all of them demonstrate a failure to absorb what has already been said. You should take more time to try and fully comprehend what people are trying to say before giving in to your compulsive need to protect your programming by responding.

Yes, it does. This is where you are completely wrong. The main difference between science and the rest of rational thought is the standard of confirmation by direct observation. This is not always possible, but that doesn't make every other form of reasoning and the resulting conclusions "nonsense" to be laughed at. Direct observation is merely one way of arriving at a conclusion; logic is another, and it's entirely rational thought. It will never produce the high levels of certainty we get from direct observation, but in situations where direct observation is infeasible, we do not simply throw our hands in the air and say, "Fuck it! We can't think about that or decide what to do about it... because it's not Scyents!"

Furthermore, there is a degree of artificiality to science anyway, because what we consider to be "direct observation" really is not. We are not actually observing what is going on; we are observing abstractions. Conceptually, one abstraction is the same as another, whether that abstraction be a universe, a star, a meteor, a human being, a thought, a feeling, an atom, or, quite possibly a boson. There is a continuum of abstraction and uncertainty, 2not a black-and-white, boolean differentiation between "science" and "not science". Something is not "invalid" or "nonsense" or "crap" because we cannot directly observe it (i.e., demonstrate evidence of it). What's more important is whether thought is logically coherent and makes maximum use of such observational confirmation where feasible, and that expression of it communicates the level of uncertainty of its truth.

Observation is not the only standard of evidence and i've never said it is, you're the only one repeating that like a parrot.

EDIT: I see you changed your post substantially and, still, the problems are the same. You're the one that framed this discussion as being about science, my point since the beginning was, and still is, that religion is nonsensical. Religion's claims have never met their burden of proof, so i, personally, see little use in taking them seriously until they do.

But we're not talking about the difference between a scientists and a non-scientist. 1We're talking about the difference between science and non-science. You guys are going of into wild-ass tangents, quibbling over definitions and semantics, because your brains are desperately seeking to avoid what they have been programmed not to acknowledge: that more often than not, non-science (whether that be the though processes or the information thereby derived) is rational, the best we can do, and not just stuff you should point your nasty-smelling fingers at and laugh.

You keep raising objection after objection, and all of them demonstrate a failure to absorb what has already been said. You should take more time to try and fully comprehend what people are trying to say before giving in to your compulsive need to protect your programming by responding.

Yes, it does. This is where you are completely wrong. The main difference between science and the rest of rational thought is the standard of confirmation by direct observation. This is not always possible, but that doesn't make every other form of reasoning and the resulting conclusions "nonsense" to be laughed at. Direct observation is merely one way of arriving at a conclusion; logic is another, and it's entirely rational thought. It will never produce the high levels of certainty we get from direct observation, but in situations where direct observation is infeasible, we do not simply throw our hands in the air and say, "Fuck it! We can't think about that or decide what to do about it... because it's not Scyents!"

Furthermore, there is a degree of artificiality to science anyway, because what we consider to be "direct observation" really is not. We are not actually observing what is going on; we are observing abstractions. Conceptually, one abstraction is the same as another, whether that abstraction be a universe, a star, a meteor, a human being, a thought, a feeling, an atom, or, quite possibly a boson. There is a continuum of abstraction and uncertainty, 2not a black-and-white, boolean differentiation between "science" and "not science". Something is not "invalid" or "nonsense" or "crap" because we cannot directly observe it (i.e., demonstrate evidence of it). What's more important is whether thought is logically coherent and makes maximum use of such observational confirmation where feasible, and that expression of it communicates the level of uncertainty of its truth.

Observation is not the only standard of evidence and i've never said it is, you're the only one repeating that like a parrot.

This is exactly what I was talking about. You read, and without thinking, you blurt out some knee-jerk response. Do you not understand that a difference can be other than black-and-white?

Stop. Think.

Let it sink in.

Go back, re-read the two things you bolded.

Re-read what I just said: "a difference can be other than black-and-white".

Think some more. No, really think. Understand. Absorb.

Now go look in a mirror, and bitch-slap yourself. (just kidding)

GabrielYYZ wrote:

Religion's claims have never met their burden of proof, so i, personally, see little use in taking them seriously until they do.

Okay, and what burden of proof do religion's claims have? I say those that disagree with the scientifically-demonstrated physical reality are out of luck. I would add that others must be based on some kind of logic (e.g. deduction, etc.). This would make most of the dogma of organized religion crap. But it doesn't automatically make every religious thought crap by definition, which is the line of reasoning you guys got called out on. Just because there is no "scientific proof" of something does not mean it is irrational or illogical or "nonsense". The "burden of proof" of a philosophical conclusion is that it be logically coherent and to the extent possible, is consistent with known truths (established facts, i.e., generally accepted axioms or scientifically accepted physical reality).

The problem with your position is not that you're saying "it's bullshit that woman was created from one of Adam's ribs, because we know H. sapiens evolved from lower creatures"; it's that you're saying "we don't have any direct evidence that the universe was intentionally created, and therefore, anybody to thinks that might be possible (regardless of how they might have deduced that there is a non-zero probability of it and the fact that science offers no conflicting explanation of the context of the big bang) is a moron."

A logical deduction outweighs "no explanation". Now, you may not agree with their logical deduction, but you haven't even asked for it, much less considered it. You stand around squawking like a goose, demanding "Evidence! Evidence! Evidence!" and declaring it to be "nonsense" because it's "not science"._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

But we're not talking about the difference between a scientists and a non-scientist. 1We're talking about the difference between science and non-science. You guys are going of into wild-ass tangents, quibbling over definitions and semantics, because your brains are desperately seeking to avoid what they have been programmed not to acknowledge: that more often than not, non-science (whether that be the though processes or the information thereby derived) is rational, the best we can do, and not just stuff you should point your nasty-smelling fingers at and laugh.

You keep raising objection after objection, and all of them demonstrate a failure to absorb what has already been said. You should take more time to try and fully comprehend what people are trying to say before giving in to your compulsive need to protect your programming by responding.

Yes, it does. This is where you are completely wrong. The main difference between science and the rest of rational thought is the standard of confirmation by direct observation. This is not always possible, but that doesn't make every other form of reasoning and the resulting conclusions "nonsense" to be laughed at. Direct observation is merely one way of arriving at a conclusion; logic is another, and it's entirely rational thought. It will never produce the high levels of certainty we get from direct observation, but in situations where direct observation is infeasible, we do not simply throw our hands in the air and say, "Fuck it! We can't think about that or decide what to do about it... because it's not Scyents!"

Furthermore, there is a degree of artificiality to science anyway, because what we consider to be "direct observation" really is not. We are not actually observing what is going on; we are observing abstractions. Conceptually, one abstraction is the same as another, whether that abstraction be a universe, a star, a meteor, a human being, a thought, a feeling, an atom, or, quite possibly a boson. There is a continuum of abstraction and uncertainty, 2not a black-and-white, boolean differentiation between "science" and "not science". Something is not "invalid" or "nonsense" or "crap" because we cannot directly observe it (i.e., demonstrate evidence of it). What's more important is whether thought is logically coherent and makes maximum use of such observational confirmation where feasible, and that expression of it communicates the level of uncertainty of its truth.

Observation is not the only standard of evidence and i've never said it is, you're the only one repeating that like a parrot.

This is exactly what I was talking about. You read, and without thinking, you blurt out some knee-jerk response. Do you not understand that a difference can be other than black-and-white?

Stop. Think.

Let it sink in.

Go back, re-read the two things you bolded.

Re-read what I just said: "a difference can be other than black-and-white".

Think some more. No, really think. Understand. Absorb.

Now go look in a mirror, and bitch-slap yourself. (just kidding)

Bloody hell, you're framing the discussion as being science vs non-science on the first bolded part, then, on the 2nd one, pointing out that the difference between "science" and "non-science" is not black and white. Just to make it clear, i haven't said that was the case and, you might have noticed, that i haven't been making distinctions between "scientific thought" and "non-scientific thought" or "scientific evidence" and "non-scientific evidence".

I edited my post and added "you are the one that framed this discussion as being about science" (since everything else is, by definition, not science), even though the discussion started being about religion.

PS: You didn't have to add the (just kidding), i don't really mind.

BoneKracker wrote:

GabrielYYZ wrote:

Religion's claims have never met their burden of proof, so i, personally, see little use in taking them seriously until they do.

Okay, and what burden of proof do religion's claims have? I say those that disagree with the scientifically-demonstrated physical reality are out of luck. I would add that others must be based on some kind of logic (e.g. deduction, etc.). This would make most of the dogma of organized religion crap. But it doesn't automatically make every religious thought crap by definition, which is the line of reasoning you guys got called out on. Just because there is no "scientific proof" of something does not mean it is irrational or illogical or "nonsense". The "burden of proof" of a philosophical conclusion is that it be logically coherent and to the extent possible, is consistent with known truths (established facts, i.e., generally accepted axioms or scientifically accepted physical reality).

The problem with your position is not that you're saying "it's bullshit that woman was created from one of Adam's ribs, because we know H. sapiens evolved from lower creatures"; it's that you're saying "we don't have any direct evidence that the universe was intentionally created, and therefore, anybody to thinks that might be possible (regardless of how they might have deduced that there is a non-zero probability of it and the fact that science offers no conflicting explanation of the context of the big bang) is a moron."

A logical deduction outweighs "no explanation". Now, you may not agree with their logical deduction, but you haven't even asked for it, much less considered it. You stand around squawking like a goose, demanding "Evidence! Evidence! Evidence!" and declaring it to be "nonsense" because it's "not science".

The premises are the ones that have to be logically coherent and consistent with known truths, a valid argument assures its conclusion to be true if the premises are true. If the argument is valid and its premises are true, then the argument is sound.

You mean "what standard of proof do religion's claims have", no? the burden of proof every claim has is that the person making the claim must justify it. Now, the standard of proof is different for every claim. if you tell me that you have a dog, i might just accept your word but, if you claim that you have an invisible car you want to sell me, you might need some paperwork or something along those lines for me to believe your claim.

Also, you're misrepresenting my position, i'm not saying (*)"we don't have any direct evidence that the universe was intentionally created, and therefore, anybody to thinks that might be possible (regardless of how they might have deduced that there is a non-zero probability of it and the fact that science offers no conflicting explanation of the context of the big bang) is a moron." What i'm saying is that anyone that claims that that is the case and cannot justify why, shouldn't expect anyone to take them seriously until they can justify their position.

Now, i ask you, not as a gotcha but honestly, do you have any examples of religious thought (as you say) that isn't "crap"?

(*) If they don't can't justify their position, the fact that science (or anything else, just to make it clear) hasn't explained something doesn't mean their position is true. That would be an argument from ignorance.

Okay, we're making progress. As I see it, you've gone from insisting on "evidence" and "proof" to insisting on "justification" (and by that, I assume you mean "logically coherent justification"). You have acknowledged that physical evidence and proof of absolute truth are not requirements for rational thought. They're desirable, of course, but it's actually rare that we have them, if you consider the entire body of human thinking that goes on.

That I can agree with.

I too agree that anybody making any kind of assertion ought to be able to demonstrate the logic of it. Sometimes assertions are not assertions of absolute truth, though, and uncertainty is duly recognized. So, it's possible for a rational person to justify a position or a conclusion based on nothing more than "gut feel" or "instinct"; but only in the absence of stronger evidence to the contrary, and only if they acknowledge the uncertainty of that position.

You come to a fork in the road, and you have no apparent reason to choose left or right, but you must make a choice. You have a slightly better feeling about going left, and you don't know why -- it's just intuition. Is this rational? Can you offer it as a justification?

The answer is "yes". Even intuition is based on valuable information. It might be wrong, but we have intuition for a reason. You hear a buzzing noise and find it irritating. Why? Because you heard a similar sound right before you got an electric shock once. You don't remember it, but your intuition causes you to discomfort when you hear it. Maybe your intuition is telling you to take the left path because, in the back of your mind, even though it's not apparent and you're not consciously aware of it at the moment of choice, you know that for most of the last six miles, left has been uphill and, with the barometric pressure dropping it's likely to rain, and being a mammal, you have built-in programming to move to high ground when it rains, to keep you from being drowned by flash floods or trapped in mud.

So, justification is enough, provided the confidence in the claim is appropriate to the degree of uncertainty.

If a person says, "I think there's got to be something out there, that plays a role in our lives. Some kind of higher power or something.", and in response to you asking, "How do you know?", they say, "It just seems like things happen for a reason.", are they being irrational? Only if they are relying heavily on this conclusion in their decision-making, which (in my opinion based on no other considerations) would imply an inappropriate level of confidence in the conclusion._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

Finally, we are indeed making progress, there might just be a god after all.

BoneKracker wrote:

Okay, we're making progress. As I see it, you've gone from insisting on "evidence" and "proof" to insisting on "justification" (and by that, I assume you mean "logically coherent justification"). You have acknowledged that physical evidence and proof of absolute truth are not requirements for rational thought. They're desirable, of course, but it's actually rare that we have them, if you consider the entire body of human thinking that goes on.

That I can agree with.

I too agree that anybody making any kind of assertion ought to be able to demonstrate the logic of it. Sometimes assertions are not assertions of absolute truth, though, and uncertainty is duly recognized. So, it's possible for a rational person to justify a position or a conclusion based on nothing more than "gut feel" or "instinct"; but only in the absence of stronger evidence to the contrary, and only if they acknowledge the uncertainty of that position.

You come to a fork in the road, and you have no apparent reason to choose left or right, but you must make a choice. You have a slightly better feeling about going left, and you don't know why -- it's just intuition. Is this rational? Can you offer it as a justification?

The answer is "yes". Even intuition is based on valuable information. It might be wrong, but we have intuition for a reason. You hear a buzzing noise and find it irritating. Why? Because you heard a similar sound right before you got an electric shock once. You don't remember it, but your intuition causes you to discomfort when you hear it. Maybe your intuition is telling you to take the left path because, in the back of your mind, even though it's not apparent and you're not consciously aware of it at the moment of choice, you know that for most of the last six miles, left has been uphill and, with the barometric pressure dropping it's likely to rain, and being a mammal, you have built-in programming to move to high ground when it rains, to keep you from being drowned by flash floods or trapped in mud.

So, justification is enough, provided the confidence in the claim is appropriate to the degree of uncertainty.

If a person says, "I think there's got to be something out there, that plays a role in our lives. Some kind of higher power or something.", and in response to you asking, "How do you know?", they say, "It just seems like things happen for a reason.", are they being irrational? Only if they are relying heavily on this conclusion in their decision-making, which (in my opinion based on no other considerations) would imply an inappropriate level of confidence in the conclusion.

I'll just point out that evidence == justification, there's not only physical evidence, tt's just that you seem to equate evidence with physical evidence and science. But, yeah, i'm mostly fine with the first paragraph, otherwise we'll go into epistemology and philosophy.

Now, the "fork in the road" and intuition, you can take the path on the left because you believe it'll rain but, if it doesn't rain, you'll know you made a bad decision, because you're going uphill for no reason. So, intuition is not rational, because you cannot always justify those beliefs you're basing your decisions on. Before i go on, i'll admit intuition is useful, but i won't say it is always rational.

The bolded part is just so you can see that, to actually justify the decision, you have to rely on observation and logic.

And, about the last paragraph, the sceptic in me would ask "and why do you think that reason is a higher power?", depending on the answer to that question i might think that they're irrational. If they say that they know, because of a book and that the book is meaningful because it's the absolute truth given to us by the same thing they're trying to prove, i would call that circular reasoning and think they're irrational. If, on the other hand, they say they don't know but present an argument, we could discuss it and see how good their argument is.

I too agree that anybody making any kind of assertion ought to be able to demonstrate the logic of it. Sometimes assertions are not assertions of absolute truth, though, and uncertainty is duly recognized. So, it's possible for a rational person to justify a position or a conclusion based on nothing more than "gut feel" or "instinct"; but only in the absence of stronger evidence to the contrary, and only if they acknowledge the uncertainty of that position.

You come to a fork in the road, and you have no apparent reason to choose left or right, but you must make a choice. You have a slightly better feeling about going left, and you don't know why -- it's just intuition. Is this rational? Can you offer it as a justification?

The answer is "yes". Even intuition is based on valuable information. It might be wrong, but we have intuition for a reason. You hear a buzzing noise and find it irritating. Why? Because you heard a similar sound right before you got an electric shock once. You don't remember it, but your intuition causes you to discomfort when you hear it. Maybe your intuition is telling you to take the left path because, in the back of your mind, even though it's not apparent and you're not consciously aware of it at the moment of choice, you know that for most of the last six miles, left has been uphill and, with the barometric pressure dropping it's likely to rain, and being a mammal, you have built-in programming to move to high ground when it rains, to keep you from being drowned by flash floods or trapped in mud.

So, justification is enough, provided the confidence in the claim is appropriate to the degree of uncertainty.

If a person says, "I think there's got to be something out there, that plays a role in our lives. Some kind of higher power or something.", and in response to you asking, "How do you know?", they say, "It just seems like things happen for a reason.", are they being irrational? Only if they are relying heavily on this conclusion in their decision-making, which (in my opinion based on no other considerations) would imply an inappropriate level of confidence in the conclusion.

ok. Let me see if I can capture some of your main points so far.

1) religious people have done good science (I agree), despite organized religion being dogmatic (I totally agree).
2) 99.99% of science participants are pushing dogma (not sure why and how you arrived at this figure. research scientists? school age children in grade 6 science? no idea what you are talking about). There are certainly issues in science. We see egos pushing their own agenda, the politicization of science, and all sorts of other issues with it. But I don't know where you get your figure from.
3) we spend much of our day and make most of our decisions in a non-scientific way (I somewhat agree).
4) some incoherent gobbledeegook about time and how religion just bashes science on this issue (I have no comment on this).

correct me where I am wrong.

The only point really is 3) and you are right there. I am not advocating that we sciencify our daily lives, but I would advocate that we look at things through the lens of reason. Does that mean we shouldn't use intuition? Of course not. Does that mean we will make some decisions without a lot of information? Of course. Does that mean we shouldn't love or listen to music or eat tasty food? Crazy talk. We go through most of our lives without the hypothesis, experiment, revise and repeat system simply because we can't and won't. So what? That's not the issue. The point is that religion hasn't done much to advance science, crazy time theories notwithstanding. Certainly not as much as science has. Most religious people would agree with that, and say of course science is in the realm of science, not religion. Religion usually steps in (not in america, religion steps in all the time re: evolution, gravity etc) when questions are so hard that the science on them is shaky (origins of the big bang etc). Fine. And I conceded that the weak prime mover theory (i.e. there exists some prime mover whose only properties we know are that it is a prime mover) is credible. But in popular religion this quickly devolves into theories about what this prime mover wants from us and WOW! he even told us in this wonderful book.

This doesn't imply there is no value to religion. that is another topic.

Finally, we are indeed making progress, there might just be a god after all.

BoneKracker wrote:

Okay, we're making progress. As I see it, you've gone from insisting on "evidence" and "proof" to insisting on "justification" (and by that, I assume you mean "logically coherent justification"). You have acknowledged that physical evidence and proof of absolute truth are not requirements for rational thought. They're desirable, of course, but it's actually rare that we have them, if you consider the entire body of human thinking that goes on.

That I can agree with.

I too agree that anybody making any kind of assertion ought to be able to demonstrate the logic of it. Sometimes assertions are not assertions of absolute truth, though, and uncertainty is duly recognized. So, it's possible for a rational person to justify a position or a conclusion based on nothing more than "gut feel" or "instinct"; but only in the absence of stronger evidence to the contrary, and only if they acknowledge the uncertainty of that position.

You come to a fork in the road, and you have no apparent reason to choose left or right, but you must make a choice. You have a slightly better feeling about going left, and you don't know why -- it's just intuition. Is this rational? Can you offer it as a justification?

The answer is "yes". Even intuition is based on valuable information. It might be wrong, but we have intuition for a reason. You hear a buzzing noise and find it irritating. Why? Because you heard a similar sound right before you got an electric shock once. You don't remember it, but your intuition causes you to discomfort when you hear it. Maybe your intuition is telling you to take the left path because, in the back of your mind, even though it's not apparent and you're not consciously aware of it at the moment of choice, you know that for most of the last six miles, left has been uphill and, with the barometric pressure dropping it's likely to rain, and being a mammal, you have built-in programming to move to high ground when it rains, to keep you from being drowned by flash floods or trapped in mud.

So, justification is enough, provided the confidence in the claim is appropriate to the degree of uncertainty.

If a person says, "I think there's got to be something out there, that plays a role in our lives. Some kind of higher power or something.", and in response to you asking, "How do you know?", they say, "It just seems like things happen for a reason.", are they being irrational? Only if they are relying heavily on this conclusion in their decision-making, which (in my opinion based on no other considerations) would imply an inappropriate level of confidence in the conclusion.

I'll just point out that evidence == justification, there's not only physical evidence, tt's just that you seem to equate evidence with physical evidence and science. But, yeah, i'm mostly fine with the first paragraph, otherwise we'll go into epistemology and philosophy.

Now, the "fork in the road" and intuition, you can take the path on the left because you believe it'll rain but, if it doesn't rain, you'll know you made a bad decision, because you're going uphill for no reason. So, intuition is not rational, because you cannot always justify those beliefs you're basing your decisions on. Before i go on, i'll admit intuition is useful, but i won't say it is always rational.

The bolded part is just so you can see that, to actually justify the decision, you have to rely on observation and logic.

I would say "observation or logic". Additionally, if you're not consciously aware of the observations you're relying on, I'd say they don't qualify as "evidence" (i.e., you can't offer them in evidence). But I'm comfortable disagreeing over whether intuition is rational. I think that's a matter of opinion more than the rest of what we were talking about, which I think we now more or less agree upon.

You may feel like your position hasn't changed. I'll just point out that I think your use of terminology has, and that I entered into this discussion complaining about the use of generalizing, ambiguous terminology (e.g., "all religion is nonsense because there's no evidence for it" versus "organized religions require too much blind faith in their dogma, and people should only rely on a premise only to the extent they can rationalize it). While that may not seem important, it leaves an open mind to speculate rationally about the unknown, and it reduces unjustified bigotry against people who are doing just that, as opposed to having blind faith in dogma or mythology.

GabrielYYZ wrote:

And, about the last paragraph, the sceptic in me would ask "and why do you think that reason is a higher power?", depending on the answer to that question i might think that they're irrational. If they say that they know, because of a book and that the book is meaningful because it's the absolute truth given to us by the same thing they're trying to prove, i would call that circular reasoning and think they're irrational. If, on the other hand, they say they don't know but present an argument, we could discuss it and see how good their argument is.

Yeah, I agree. It was just an example, but I'd speculate that such a person might respond, "because 'happens for a reason' implies 'intent'". Personally, I don't think "things happen for a reason", but I do think that's a useful cognitive plug-in that provides an optimistic outcome to people looking for a way to momentarily overcome setbacks. A more realistic statement of it might be, "While and event may seem devastatingly tragic on first impression, we often discover later they had other positive consequences, sometimes ones that outweigh what seemed like devastation. So look for these and make the most of them."_________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

We are essentially in agreement. My "99.99%" was based on my assessment that virtually the only people doing real science are scientists; pretty much everybody else is being dogmatic (e.g., educators, people like mcgruff with their sophomoric, black-and-white, schoolbook-oriented thinking, and most folks who have never given any real thought to science since their education and haven't yet figured out that we don't know squat)._________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

I would say "observation or logic". Additionally, if you're not consciously aware of the observations you're relying on, I'd say they don't qualify as "evidence" (i.e., you can't offer them in evidence). But I'm comfortable disagreeing over whether intuition is rational. I think that's a matter of opinion more than the rest of what we were talking about, which I think we now more or less agree upon.

You may feel like your position hasn't changed. I'll just point out that I think your use of terminology has, and that I entered into this discussion complaining about the use of generalizing, ambiguous terminology (e.g., "all religion is nonsense because there's no evidence for it" versus "organized religions require too much blind faith in their dogma, and people should only rely on a premise only to the extent they can rationalize it). While that may not seem important, it leaves an open mind to speculate rationally about the unknown, and it reduces unjustified bigotry against people who are doing just that, as opposed to having blind faith in dogma or mythology.

Yeah, I agree. It was just an example, but I'd speculate that such a person might respond, "because 'happens for a reason' implies 'intent'". Personally, I don't think "things happen for a reason", but I do think that's a useful cognitive plug-in that provides an optimistic outcome to people looking for a way to momentarily overcome setbacks. A more realistic statement of it might be, "While and event may seem devastatingly tragic on first impression, we often discover later they had other positive consequences, sometimes ones that outweigh what seemed like devastation. So look for these and make the most of them."

* I said "observation and logic" in the context of your example, i get your point about "observation or logic" and i would add "or mathematical proof or a coherent and compelling argument", these are all perfectly reasonable justifications, depending on the claim.

Aside from that clarification, i agree this might be the most progress we'll make, so i'm perfectly fine with agreeing where we agree and agreeing to disagree on everything else for now, or else we'll keep going around in the same circles.

I personally discovered, coming from academic and atheistic family that science makes sense only if granades don't fall on your head and your friends don't die. For example.

So, esentially, you're implying that situations of high stress which make reasoning difficult are more conducive to supernatural beliefs? If so, i agree. But i don't agree that applies to everyone.

If you ever wanna discuss anything with anyone above 20-years old, you have to learn not to put words in their mouth.

All I see is your ego trying to defend its cultural programming.

You might want to take note of the question mark, it means i was asking you if that was the case. And, the "if so, i agree" means i agree, if that was indeed the case, otherwise i disagreed.

If you felt i misrepresented your position, you're free to clarify it. If, on the other hand, all you wanted to do is repeat the line about cultural programming, then i honestly can't be arsed to care.

I personally discovered, coming from academic and atheistic family that science makes sense only if granades don't fall on your head and your friends don't die. For example.

So, esentially, you're implying that situations of high stress which make reasoning difficult are more conducive to supernatural beliefs? If so, i agree. But i don't agree that applies to everyone.

My experience has been that nearly everyone finds God when there's suddenly a good chance they're going to die or suffer some other kind of serious, emotionally traumatic loss. If you doubt it, go visit an Army or Marine infantry unit when their chaplain is offering a prayer shortly before they go into a major attack, and count how many people voluntarily did not attend.

I'm an atheist and have been since about age 18, but I have no shame about telling you that I have prayed in earnest to God on numerous occasions. _________________History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban

I personally discovered, coming from academic and atheistic family that science makes sense only if granades don't fall on your head and your friends don't die. For example.

So, esentially, you're implying that situations of high stress which make reasoning difficult are more conducive to supernatural beliefs? If so, i agree. But i don't agree that applies to everyone.

My experience has been that nearly everyone finds God when there's suddenly a good chance they're going to die or suffer some other kind of serious, emotionally traumatic loss. If you doubt it, go visit an Army or Marine infantry unit when their chaplain is offering a prayer shortly before they go into a major attack, and count how many people voluntarily did not attend.

I'm an atheist and have been since about age 18, but I have no shame about telling you that I have prayed in earnest to God on numerous occasions.

Look for the Military Association of Atheist and Freethinkers' website and tell them how there are "no atheists in foxholes". I'm sure they'll have a good laugh about it too.

I can personally tell you, even though my personal experience is statistically insignificant, that i've had family die, my mother was ill a couple years ago and i've had some scares, but i haven't turned to the supernatural. i've been an atheist almost as long as i've been an asantaclausist and i don't see that changing based on an irrational inclination to pray to the fairy god daddy.

PS: I should also tell you my tolerance for trolling is pretty high, so i doubt i'll lose my composure easily.